![]() ![]() This is fine, but you could frame the issue a bit more honestly. ![]() I also think that you're pushing this issue so hard solely because you're trying to spread your ideas rather than trying to correct an injustice (as seems to be the suggestion of your essay). In short, I think the reason that few people speak of "GNU/Linux" is because it's an awkward name rather than because 'the evil corporations are trying to suppress our message of freedom'. I'd even go so far as to say that "Linux" has a stronger connotation of freedom than GNU does, since more people have heard of it and know what it's about! I think you'll find that, for most software users, GNU is a meaningless acronym with no suggestion of anything. It's like suggesting that people shorten my name from "Philip" to "Phil" because they're trying to suppress my identity!įor there to be any value in a company intentionally removing the GNU part to dodge the freedom issue, the term "GNU" should strongly suggest "freedom" and they should have a vested interest in hushing-up your cause. This is just dishonest propaganda! "Linux" is the obvious contraction of "GNU/Linux", and people like nothing better than shortening clunky names to more manageable ones. The marketing tactics of such companies often results in people adopting the same language habits, unaware of all that is at play. This is where I have the biggest problem with your essay. Insisting on saying "GNU/Linux" every time is annoying and artificial, in my opinion at least, and only benefits GNU and the FSF. PowerPoint is actually called "Microsoft Office PowerPoint", not that anyone but a Microsoft sales rep would ever call it that), and then we're back where we are today, calling it "Linux" for short. Formal names like this will always get shortened by users (e.g. "GNU/Linux" sounds dorkier than just "Linux" it's more difficult to remember, has two extra syllables, and seems just as silly to me as giving a product a long numerical code or copious "trademark" or "registered" symbols. Hence, aren't they equally worthy of credit? Why isn't it enough to credit GNU in a more subtle way, like we do with these other products?Ī second objection comes from a marketing perspective. So why should GNU get special mention? Most of those products may depend on GNU software to work (just as much as GNU software depends upon C), but that doesn't change the amount of effort that went into creating them or what they've added to the free software community. Remove any of those components and we'd be set back many years. However, it's also fair to say that Ubuntu wouldn't be here without Xorg, GNOME, KDE, Mozilla or OpenOffice. People are appreciative of the effort that goes into GNU software, and the possibilities that it has opened up for us Ubuntu couldn't be as popular or usable as it is today without it. While I don't deny that GNU is a vital component of every last Linux distro out there, I don't see why it should be credited in such a specific and visible way. The Wikipedia angle is just an excuse to get the issue back on the table.įirst off, I'm against referring to "Linux" as "GNU/Linux" at every possible juncture. This is just another attempt at trying to shoehorn the GNU name into everything! I don't believe that the principal reason for wanting to do this is an issue of promoting freedom in general rather, it's more to do with spreading the FSF's views, which I see as "one specific version of what freedom is, with some extra baggage".
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |